http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3672
--- Comment #3 from Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> 2013-03-23 17:28:09 PDT --- I've had a discussion with Walter in which we agreed that atomic increment should NOT be generated implicitly for shared variables. Herb Sutter also agrees that C++11 made a mistake adding the sugar to atomic<T> and recommends using named functions. Code using operands with shared data should not compile. Named functions should provide the appropriate primitives. There is no issue of code breakage because the code listed was behaving incorrectly to start with. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
